Another example of your ability to think positively rather than negatively - which is not only a good thing - but a God thing!  Jer. 29:11: all his thoughts toward us are good.

I'm not sure nondenomination is a denomination for this reason: there's as much variety among the "nondenoms" as there is among the "denoms." Lots of different "streams" there.  

Doyle, great comment! Children are generally not the same (unless twins of course lol). Yet God loves them all, even celebrating their uniqueness.

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. (1 Cor 12:4-6)

Hey Mike&Laura,

Having worshpped in almost all possible denominations (I grew up as an anglican, accepted the Lord in a pentecostal church, grew in faith in brethern/evangelical churches. Now attending a charismatic church!! I have to agree with you that we are all unique, we are all special, we are all God's children. All denominations have their own biases and even attitudes etc. which can be termed 'unchristian' at times, they still form part of His Bride. I have enjoyed and learnt to worship the Lord in all kinds of worship services, from the loudest (heavy rock, grunge, metal worship) to a brethern worship (where the only instrument you hear is your vocal chords!). I can worship the Lord in Spirit in each of these places. It proves to me as you mentioned that it is the SAME Spirit. Amen! We serve a God who loves variety and loves in when His children worship in all the possible ways :) He is a creative GOd, we are called to be Creative children. :)

Thanks for the blog! 

Hello Johns, wow that's quite a variety of experiences you've had. How excellent that you've witnessed unity through it all! Great observation too, God is spirit, the SAME spirit, wherever you worship!!

Cheryl (from Ga) - I'm glad you mentioned that we need to be aware of specific doctrinal stances. While variety is good, false doctrines should never be accepted under the guise of variety. So we should all work towards being able to analyze doctrines and spot divergences from Scripture!

Great points Lara! I really like your allusion to the body of Christ. How useless would Christ's body be if it was just a bunch of arms (no legs etc.). Thank you for sharing your valuable insights!

We should love everyone, even those belonging to a different denomination.  We will all be standing before the same God when our life here is over.  In Heaven we will be one big denomination!

Wait Dave! No one's asking anybody to become a universalist!!! And this isn't my attempt at ecumenism either!

But it's a fact that there are more similarities of belief than differences when you compare the denominations of Christianity. 

Don't you tire of hearing people say "if Christianity is true, then how do we know who has it right...Methodists, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Pentacostal, etc....." THEY ALL HAVE IT RIGHT! But the key is each only has it partially right! Half a truth is not a lie!

We shall only see him as he really is when we get to heaven!! We aren't there yet, so each of us is doing the best we can....if we're doing at all.

What a blessing....just popping my head in to catch-up on the read....diversity in denominations is wonderful; division in the body of believers as Christians is not of God.  Unity is of God.  As Deb said, we will all be together in heaven...can't wait! How Wonderful!

Todd, ....LOL

How much fellowship should we have with the antichrist?  Lifting holy hands with antichrists... I don't know...

How much religious gobblety-gook should we endure in the name of diversity?  Unity for unity's sake seems a little foolish.  But maybe that's not what you're espousing.  You did seem to draw the line at "New Age" - whatever that is.  Could "New Age" be defined as anything that I find religiously objectionable?

It seems to me that the apostle Paul tried to "patch things up" with the apostle James in Acts 21+.  That didn't turn out so well.  Paul's ministry had been financially supporting the socialist church in Jerusalem and all he got for his efforts was a flogging or two, a few years in prison, and a death-defying trip to Rome.  After spending two years under house arrest in Rome, the story abruptly stops and nothing more is said about what Paul did after that.  Maybe he went back to Jerusalem and made nice-nice with James again - wuddya think?

Somehow, in my warped world-view, I can't see Paul and James ever quite reconciling after that little stunt.  But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

There is diversity within the church (the bride of Christ) but you can't lump everybody who wears Jesus' name into the same batch.  A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.  According to the word I read, that's not a good thing.

Rob

Rob, I would agree, not everyone who claims the name of Jesus is necessarily saved. Most (including me) would differentiate between the so-called mainline denominations and cults. You and I both know the JWs are considered a denomination by....no one. I would also be hesitant to agree with this: Each denomination differs in its formula for "getting right with God". The differences between Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentacostals (etc.), though important, is likely cosmetic. The basic formula for "getting right with God" is still the same between them: believe with your heart and confess w/your mouth that Jesus is Lord.

Rob, I respect your opinion and thank you for your comments! 

Rob, I don't "throw out" anyone, nor do I include anyone. I have no power over who constitutes the Church. I have no desire to decide on who constitutes the Church, either. Smarter men than I have wrestled with that over the ages. For the sake of my blog, I'll use the Nicene Creed as a determinant of what is a "Christian denomination" vs. what may be considered a cult. The website "Creeds of Christendom" stated this, which I found interesting:

The Nicene Creed is the most ecumenical of creeds. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) joins with Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant churches in affirming it.

Is the "him" in the above passage referring to God the Father or God the Son?

All things were made by him and for him.  Are you sure we should go by the Nicene Creed?  My bible tells me that the Father said to the Son:

Clearly, heaven and earth was a management decision but the Creator was my Jesus, the carpenter, not the Father.  Jesus is the One who got His hands dirty.  The Father created heaven and earth like the Pope was the one who painted the Sistine Chapel.  No!  It was Michelangelo!

Roman Catholicism is the biggest Satanic Cult on planet E and you would lock arms with that bunch?

My nephew is a Roman Catholic theologian and by his own admission, he cannot do the calculus on the doctrine of Purgatory.  The Catholic doctrine about Purgatory completely denies the finished work of Jesus and yet Catholics recite the Nicene Creed.  Which is more important to my long-term survival?  Warming up to the antichrists or knowing what Jesus did by His sacrifice on the cross?

If we're using the creeds of men to determine our fellowship then, really, anything goes.  But if we are using the bible as our standard then we have to make some hard decisions.  And, while it would be nice to be nice, we can't close our eyes to the wolves we may be inadvertently inviting into our midst.  They will shipwreck our faith and we will wind up as misguided, confused, and lost as they are.  I'm not saying they're going to hell, necessarily, but they have no idea who they are, or who God is.  And if that can get you to heaven, Jesus paid an awful price by revealing to us exactly who we are and exactly who God is.

To say that denominationalism is anything other than a cancer on the bride of Christ is to contradict the doctrine that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.  Denominationalism denies that scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  Denominationalism claims to be smarter and better than God Himself.

Or so it seems to me,
Rob

Rob, you say that you were a part of the "Church of Christ."  Which denomination was that?  The United Church of Christ?  The Church of Christ Scientist?  The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints?  The United Church of Christ uses the Nicene Creed.  The other two I'd agree with you.

When you say, "All denominations are evil to the core" that 's a pretty broad brush and I'd challenge you on that.  Having been a part of a number of different denominations I can honestly say that I have never seen that from a denomination.  True, there are people within denominations that have only their own self interests at heart and care little fro the greater Body of Believers.  But self-centeredness is not the property of any one group - it's endemic in human nature; denominational, non-denominational and independent.

In agreement with Mike, I will say that denominations do not hold the keys to heaven - no group and no person does except Jesus, the Christ.  Any denomination represents a collective opinion and each person holds those so they are no different in that extent that any other individual or group.  That certainly does not make them "evil" or "beasts" as you say. 

I would also add that in reading 1 John you must place it in context to understand what is being said.  The Bible is full of expressions and phrases that make no sense or which could be seen to mean one thing or another.  John's letter is to a church (yes, a church) that was under a false understanding of Grace.  They felt that because the blood of Christ saved them, they had license to practice whatever.  (Here I could digress into your discussion of denominations and you certainly have good cause in some cases on THIS topic.)  John is trying to make sure that they are not accepting the sacrifice and truly born again if they willfully continue to practice sinful behaviors.  for a person who truly believes, it becomes loathsome to engage in sinful activity because the truth is in them.  That is the essence of John's letter.  John begins from this perspective when he wrote in 1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."  John is acknowledging that we all sin.  He is not proclaiming that we are perfect creatures.  Oh, and I have heard Bible studies and sermons which use these texts - in my current church and former ones as well.

Please be careful with context in reading scripture.  Pride and arrogance are also sins and we certainly get caught up in that - even Job did.  And I will second you in your agreement with Mike in that denominations are imperfect.  Like I said - they're collective opinions.  And we all know what they say about opinions,  "They're like ___ - everybody's got one."

I do not know what you may have suffered as a result of your path among the denominational currents and I will not belittle that aspect of your life.  Apparently you have been hurt and that is worth noting.  On the other hand, I know of someone who quit going to church because the pastor wore red pants one day.  The point is that there are valid reasons for discontinuing with a particular group; but, there are also excuses.  We simply must be able to understand and sympathize with the one while edifying the other with the hopes that they will return to faith.  You are obviously not in the latter category so please do not take my comments in that manner.  Its just a way to understand where some people may be coming from in remarks made to you.

I wish you peace.

We have to be "fully persuaded" that God is true to His word otherwise we stagger (or "waver" as the NIV says).  One way we can do that is to encourage each other and challenge each other.

I confronted the preacher who didn't believe in "air-tight" promises from God.  I know he has not forgotten that confrontation.  Whether he's repented, I do not know - I have not been back to his church.  You may judge that to be "pride" or "arrogance" but I wish I'd have done that 30-years ago when these faithless charlatans were vomiting their putrid unbelief into my life.

Gene, I'm encouraging you to consider that, perhaps the Apostle John was not telling his readers that we should live with an expectation to sin all the time.  Judging from the balance of his writings, what else could 1 John 1:8 mean?  Could he be telling us that our source of power, righteousness, and sinlessness is in Jesus and not in ourselves?  Could he be saying (as I say all the time), "Without Jesus, I'm a mess"?  Could he be saying, "If we say WE have no sin, we deceive ourselves..."?  Would that make the rest of his statements in 1 John 3:5-9 and 5:18 mean what they say?  Would that give you more hope in the goodness of God than expecting to sin every day?  I think it would.

Believing in the promises of God is what makes us righteous.  Denominations tend to down-play that "minor" aspect of our Christian walk.  They tend to major in the other departments - tithing, bake sales, abortion activities, voting Republican, stamping out pornography, etc.  These may be wonderful and worthwhile activities but they're not connecting people with their source of righteousness.

My wife says, "You can't teach what you don't know".  She's so wise.

Rob

may I step in here?

Paul also writes:

In Eph. 5: not to be  fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolate

he is speaking to the church, and he goes on to say  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

He tells the church in Corinth, But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 1Cor. 5:11

My point being, Paul is speaking to the church, about the believers living in sin.

I keep hearing the "grace" theology, "but I think" that it has been twisted to suit a teaching of no consequences.

I keep hearing of how people don't like James' teachings, about "works". But I don't think the works he is speaking of here is the same as what Paul is teaching, but rather is the fruit. A person that has turned his life over to Christ, does not want to sin, but he will slip, this is where I think grace comes in. Being able to ask for forgiveness and turning away from the sin. Christ always told those He healed, to go and sin no more!

Paul teaches that salvation is not done with the works of following the law of Moses, of all of the dietary laws, and sacrificial laws found in Deuteronomy. Paul comes against these, but he also tells Timothy that if you continue to sin, your conscience will be seared.

 Again back to James, he says faith with out works "fruit", it is dead faith.

Same as Christ taught, and what Paul teaches us. 

It should be noted that walking in the Spirit is not supposed to take lots of effort.  His commandments are not grievous.  If the Spirit of God lives inside you, you have the supernatural ability to walk by that Spirit.  If it's hard to do or you find yourself continually slipping into sin again and again then you're either believing something wrong or you haven't received the Holy Spirit - which is a distinct possibility (see Acts 19:1-3).

Also, I've taught enough about James the Just to last for awhile.  Suffice to say, he did not understand Paul's concept of faith righteousness.  This is why he characterizes it as "believing in one God" (see James 2:19).  Obviously, Paul's concept of faith righteousness was more than mere monotheism.  James didn't understand that.  His "faith" versus "works" arguments are against a position no one ever took.

Gene,

We can continue in sin, walk in the flesh, and God will love us there.  We do not have to acknowledge His kindness or take advantage of His power (i.e. grace).  He traded places with us 2000 years ago.  He took my punishment and I received His glory.  But it's all about choices.  We can choose to walk in the Spirit or we can choose to walk in the flesh.

We forfeit the power of God when we walk in the flesh - our own power.  If we walk in the flesh we have to be under law.  Since law is the power of sin (see 1 Cor. 15:55-56), we will continue to fall.  But God still loves us. 

Sin is not the problem.  Sin is a symptom of a deeper problem - that of walking in the flesh.  If I sin all the time (every day, or every once in awhile) I can be confident that in that particular area or areas I am not walking in God's Spirit.  If I were then I would not be sinning.  Those are the mechanics of victory.

Martin Luther definitely understood "faith righteousness".  In fact, he wanted to boot the book of James right out of the canon of the New Testament because it is so doctrinally off-track.

On the subject of perfection, have you read the book of Hebrews lately?  Over and over, the writer tells us we have been made perfect by Jesus' sacrifice.  I am perfect in Christ.

I've heard denominations talk about the "sanctification process".  The bible tells me that I am sanctified in Christ.  I don't have to go through any "sanctification process" because Jesus already went through it for me.

Jesus makes me perfect.  Jesus sanctified me.  Jesus keeps me sin-free.  Without Jesus all I have is me.  Unfortunately, I suck.  I need Jesus or else I start to fall into sin all the time - which is to say, "I have sin".  I have sin but Jesus makes me sin-free.  I have sin but Jesus is my righteousness.  I have sin but Jesus sanctified me.  I do not fall into sin because Jesus keeps me safe and the evil one cannot harm me.

Now read 1 John 1:8 again.  Notice it does NOT say, "If we say we do not sin..."  it says, "If we say we have no sin..."  There is a big difference.  It's okay to say "I do not sin" - it's not okay to say "I have no sin".  Elsewhere in John's writings, he uses the expression "have no sin".  Look at John 9:41 and John 15:22:

Mike n Laura, I dust my feet, and will pray for Rob.

I'm not asking you to swallow all this stuff right now.  Take your time.  Try it on.  I'm proposing an alternate reality and you kind of have to ease into it.

Read Hebrews with all this in mind.

Rob

:)

Needed to add this relevant post by Grant, related to this topic, found elsewhere:

Grant

August 19, 2009

MarJay...have you ever visited/worshiped in another Christian church? Isn't it amazing that we do enjoy one Lord/faith/baptism (in the Holy Spirit) when we do that? I'm really not saying anything goes, or all churches that claim to be Christian are, that would be carrying my thoughts too far. But for those churches that do classify as authentic denominations of Christianity, the differences are cosmetic and the unity is real...from what I have seen and experienced. Thanks for your input, sister.

Jules, "anti-denominationalism" is a funny thing, isn't it? It's almost like hyper-denominationalism, b/c each of those churches ends up creating their own distinctives, rather than identifying with the distinctives of the larger group. Thus, a new, tiny "denomination" of Christianity. (as I see it)

Marjay, Paul fought denomination from the beginning,

MarJay, we COULD say that there are no different denominations of faith in heaven. But we aren't there yet. One of the consequences of sin is imperfect fellowship w/God, and therefore none of us has a perfect understanding of truth. Well, I've actually met one or two ppl here and there who claimed to have a perfect understanding of truth, but, well, you know that as soon as someone claims to be perfect, they've just blown it!

The great apostle Paul admitted as much to the Corinthian church:

mike n Laura you said: The divisions mentioned in that verse are not the result of impartial understanding but rivalries and contention. Right?

Is it any different today, the Baptists say they are right, the Methodists say they are right, the Lutherans say it too, just look at the the denominations we have today.

 And then you have the Catholics, which most of the modern denominations have sprung out of, say all you have it wrong.

How many bloody wars have been fought over doctrine?

Look oversees, the Catholics and Protestants finally ended a long war in Ireland.

Look here on MyChurch, although we don't have wars, we (myself included shamefully) still through word bombs.

I agree Gary and MarJay, ideally there would be only one doctrine. At one time there was, until over time sinful humans corrupted it. Even the different translations of the bible are a result of sin if you think about it. But wars and fights are fought by people, not doctrines. The greater problem isn't the differences between us but how we handle them.

If we would all be more humble and accepting of different understandings of truth, maybe the fights would end?

Great comment Stevie! I never disagreed w/you! (or I would have been wrong, lol)

Thanks for that perspective, Liz!

Like Grant said in the comment I transplanted here today (about 15 comments above this), "There is no infallible church." As long as we continue to deny that, thinking our own understanding is infallible, there will be rivalry and contention, and wars over doctrines. :)

Marjay, you said: And we know that everybody is not on the same level of  knowledge.

This is such a valid point. 

But that is why our walk is a personal walk,

If we try to fit in, with a group of people that are at the same level as us, either we will grow faster then the others, and either, stifle our growth, in order to stay with them.

Or we tend to try to drag the others along at our pace. The later one causes all sorts of pulled muscles, scaped knees, and many headaches.

 The other side of that coin,

We see our friends growing past us, and then we either drag them back by trying to intimidate and embarrase them,

Or we try to keep up, and then the pain and bruises start all over again.

[star!]

Mike, excellent read. Here is my view on it (gulp for posting it out in the open like this)

 I also don't have a specific denomination of faith on here and I won't be settling with one, because they all have some sort of twist of evil to it. I find that with different demoninations there is divided parts  of the Body of Jesus Christ. Paul warned about that. It is in 1 Corthians 1:10-18 and this link below explains that further. (amazing what you can reaserch at 2:00am)

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2255

First of all, thank you, Mike n Laura for unblocking me.  That was a very gracious gesture and I appreciate it.

I don't think anybody is saying that we have to hate everybody who disagrees with our doctrine.  But we know from the scriptures that believing the wrong doctrine can cause one to live under a curse.

I used to think that Paul was saying that we should curse those who preach bad doctrine but if you take the whole book of Galatians in context, the apostle was saying that people curse themselves by believing the wrong doctrine.

The specific doctrine Paul preached against in the book of Galatians was the doctrine of "works righteousness". This doctrine, Paul concludes, alienates us from God in our minds.

Here's how: If I'm trying to please God by crossing all my T's and dotting all my I's then I'm under the curse of the Law.  My tenuous relationship with God depends on how well I can carry out His commandments. The doctrine of "works righteousness" is damaging to us psychologically because it reduces our value to God to what we can do for Him.

Wrong doctrine is bad psychology.  If we are presented with two scriptural yet opposing doctrines where one is healthy and the other damaging, we can safely assume the healthy one to be of God and the other to be of the devil.  But this rule of thumb is itself a doctrine.

I was raised Catholic and they have no problem believing in psychologically damaging theologies.  When we kids would get hurt my mother would tell us to "offer it up for the poor souls in Purgatory". 

Purgatory is a place where Catholics go who didn't quite make it to heaven.  Purgatory, like hell, is a place of suffering but unlike hell, there's an end to it.  God sends you to Purgatory so that you can suffer your sins away.  When you have suffered enough then you can go to heaven and be with Jesus and the saints.

Purgatory denies the finished work of Jesus by creating a theology based on our suffering to purge our own sins.  Catholicism says that Jesus wasn't enough.

The Catholic Church has what they call, "The Miracle of Transubstantiation".  Transubstantiation is what the priest does at each mass to convert the bread and wine into the "actual body and blood of Jesus" without changing its molecular composition.  This lying wonder is done each time the priest offers the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass".

Catholicism teaches that Jesus' sacrifice was not "once for all".  They believe that Jesus must be offered again and again for the sins of the people.

When a priest is ordained, they say, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek".  The book of Hebrews says there is one Priest after that order - not many.

Catholicism says that the pope is "the vicar of Christ on earth".  According to www.newadvent.org (an online Catholic encyclopedia), "... the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth..."  Who does the bible say is the Head of the church of Christ?

These are just a few of many errant theologies held by the Catholic Church - the biggest Christian denomination on earth.  Each one of these doctrines runs contrary to one or more hard and fast doctrines detailed in the scriptures.  It's hard to believe that something as big as the Catholic Church would be SO wrong about so many fundamental scriptural truths but it is.

Rob

Marcia makes a good point.  Are we to accept Catholicism because that church makes up the vast majority of nominal Christianity?  Do we accept this "Mother of Harlots" just because she mouths the Nicene Creed?

My whole family is Roman Catholic but that doesn't make them bad people.  It's not hatred of people that we're espousing, it's hatred of the lie.

God loves Catholics but He hates what Catholicism is doing to them.  There is no way on earth or in heaven that Catholics can be saved.  They deny the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice.  But this denial is NOT limited to the Catholic Church.

Grant is getting alot of play here, but let's take the last thing he said:

The point of our faith is that none is perfect except Christ, and he alone is our Savior. That is official teaching by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike. 

Different people mean different things by "Savior".  In my discussion of Purgatory (above) I pointed out that the Catholic Church may say that Jesus is the only Savior but their theology makes each Christian responsible to suffer for his own sins.

Marcia points out that while they may say that Jesus is the only Savior, their veneration of Mary and the other saints makes that an empty confession.  Not everyone who claims to be of God is of God.  Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.

But that's not to say that we should all go out and hate Catholics. Nobody is anti-people here.  We are anti-error.  We eschew communism because it is a failed system.  We disagree with monarchies because we know that it leads to rampant totalitarianism.  But we don't hate people who are communist, or people who submit to an earthly king.  

We who are nominally Democratic hate to see people live under the rule of monarchs.  We understand a few things about politics and how people in power are wired.  There are certain political systems that we HATE with a purple passion but the people who live under these systems we hold almost completely harmless.  In fact, we pity these poor people.

We understand that freedom is better than bondage.  We know that certain religious systems tend toward bondage and others tend toward freedom. 

Politically speaking, we  Americans, we feel entitled to be free but not all former British colonies are of that opinion.  Most former British colonies owe some allegiance to England.  Canada still considers the Queen of England to be her queen.  People from the United States look at that and say, "YIKES!!!"

Baptists look at Catholics and say, "How stupid", but that doesn't make them better than them.  People are free because the truth makes them free. If what you have enslaves you to ritual or man then what you have is not truth.  

Or so it seems to me,

Rob

WOW, just sat here and re-read this blog.... have I changed alot since it started!!!

Here is what I have learned....

I think a lot of the problems the modern church stem from is context. I have been studying how the NT fits, and it don't, not in the form we have now. It is all out of context. As to a history of the church, it is all over the place,

The purpose of the New Testament was to give us a pattern.  When it was put together the way we know it, that pattern was destroyed. 

When there is no pattern to follow, men could make up their own.  And that’s exactly what they’ve been doing for 1900 years.

The New Testament is in the same order that you find it in every major translation and it has been the same ever since the first one was printed in 1456. 

It was organized the way you see it because an Augustinian monk thought this particular order made it easier to study doctrine. 

But in this form, it presents an incongruous and disjointed picture of what really happened in the church during it’s first 100 years, making it easy for men to disregard history and bend it to their own will and purposes. 

A great example is James, it is towards the end of the NT, but actually it was the first letter written, and it was written prior to Paul going to Jerusalem, because of the Judaizers, coming out of church in Jerusalem, the church led by James.

James wrote:

  then later, after Paul corrects James and Peter...

Paul writes:

 James was teaching works righteousness, but Paul corrected this, with his faith righteousness.

If we look at the NT in context, historically, we see a church growing, just like our own lives.

Thank you Jonah and Missions Asia!

Robinjoy, I too feel I get a deeper sense of the TRUE unity of the Spirit whenever I visit/worship with a different church - especially one outside of my own "denomination". (We actually go to a non-denominational church, but as has been said already, non-denoms constitute a denom too!) Great to hear that Melody is developing a strong faith of her own - every Christian parent's hope!

Gary,

a) I think you make more of the order of books of the bible than necessary. The epistles are didactic, not descriptive/historical, and therefore the order should not be an issue. If you took the book of Acts and sliced it up and rearranged it, that would be a different story!

b) The issue with James' theology is overdone too. You guys look at ONE VERSE and imagine an entire theology around it. Thorough study should easily show that James was in line w/Paul even at the early date James was written. For starters, examine the rendering of this passage in other translations:

Here's the rendering of James 2:21-24 in The Message:
Wasn't our ancestor Abraham "made right with God by works" when he placed his son Isaac on the sacrificial altar? Isn't it obvious that faith and works are yoked partners, that faith expresses itself in works? That the works are "works of faith"? The full meaning of "believe" in the Scripture sentence, "Abraham believed God and was set right with God," includes his action. It's that mesh of believing and acting that got Abraham named "God's friend." Is it not evident that a person is made right with God not by a barren faith but by faith fruitful in works?

Here's James 2:21 in the Amplified Bible:
Was not our forefather Abraham [shown to be] justified (made acceptable to God) by [his] works when he brought to the altar as an offering his [own] son Isaac?

And here is James 2:21-22 in the NIV (Nearly Infallible Version, lol):
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?  You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

I also believe that Paul's mentioning of Abraham's righteousness by faith is in no way a correction of James (that idea is certainly speculative), but merely a continuation of the discussion in Romans 3, the last verse of which says "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Father Abraham was a HUGE figure in Jewish history, like our George Washington, so it isn't at all strange that both Paul and James would mention him in discussing the topic of what makes a Jew righteous.

(My brother and friend, if you or anyone wishes to get a last word in on the subject of James/righteous, please make it brief - a separate blog would be a far better place for that discussion - thanks!)

EXCELLENT point, Pastor Bob. That's really important. Thanks for adding that!

I'll restate the point of this blog: There's no need to see in the existence of denominational Christianity a fractured, crippled church, or even a misguided church. 1,200  years ago there was ONE church, and when the leadership of that ONE church strayed into error, they led the ENTIRE church into error! There may be problems with the existence of numerous denominations of our One Faith, but there are also benefits!

Until this blog was written, whenever I saw the word "denomination" in blogs on this site it was always in the context of a complaint or lament. We need to brighten up, God can (and DOES) use denominational Christianity for his purposes too!

Rob, your main complaint seems to be with the Roman Catholic church. I'll invite you to write a blog opening up for discussion the pros and cons of that institution. The idea presented here is that our One Faith does not necessarily need to be rigid and uniform. There are many valid levels of understanding of our Savior and the mission in which he calls us to join him. There are many superficial, inconsequential differences which we can overlook in the interests of making Jesus known to the world. The good news Paul shared was SIMPLE:

...or...

Mike n Laura, a large section of the  letter James wrote deals with works. While Paul wrote...

Rom 4:4-7  When people work, their pay is not regarded as a gift but something they have earned.

However, when people don't work but believe God, the one who approves ungodly people, their faith is regarded as God's approval.

David says the same thing about those who are blessed: God approves of people without their earning it. David said, "Blessed are those whose disobedience is forgiven and those sins are pardoned. 

Marcia,

I am not a Catholic and so I'm among the last ppl you want to ask for scriptural defense of specific beliefs/practices.  Rob brought up Transubstantiation...I would tend to side with him/you based on my understanding of what they believe about it, but I also don't think their belief in that doctrine will send ANY Catholic to hell.

I have met some Catholics who are FAR more Christlike than Protestants or nondenoms (or whatever). If you would like to educate yourself on Catholic practice/beliefs, may I recommend you consult with Catholic resources, RATHER THAN those written by non-Catholics (for the intent purpose of showing Catholics as wrong). I'm not saying they are right, just offering some advice in the interests of honesty and fairness (since you asked).

Why did I deposit Grant's comment into this blog? Because he spoke to the same issue, the existence of different "flavors" of Christianity. He made several points which I profoundly agree with, including: "There is no infallible church.... The point of our faith is that none is perfect except Christ, and he alone is our Savior. That is official teaching by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike."

My friend, you said "If Jesus Christ is everyone's Savior,  I would think that everyone would have the same faith in the same Jesus Christ, and we would have one faith in the one Savior and would follow him and not have to join some religous Denomination." My personal opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) of that statement is, it is impractical and naive to think that all the Christians of the world can come together in one unified understanding of God's call to his people. My goodness, just look at all the disagreements here on MyChurch! If the only Christians in the world were MyChurch members, and we had the task of starting the Church afresh, we'd have a myriad of new denominations in no time! You might cry, "That's the problem!" But who's right? Is it you, Marcia? If YOU started a church, and called it "The Perfect Bride of Christ" (or whatever), I guarantee you a new denomination would be birthed in no time, b/c you are not infallible, Marcia. Neither am I. So Grant's statement rings very true to me, and I'll worship Jesus to the very best of my ability, in the denomination that most closely agrees with what I see the Savior telling me.

(BTW, I actually have some significant disagreements with the way my own church is run, but have chosen to see myself just as imperfect as the people I do church with. This helps me overlook the differences, and enjoy Christ in them regardless of the areas in which we disagree!)

Hey Dennis, nice to see you bro! I've also written some very nice blogs about Jesus and my faith, if you'd like to comment on them as well!! For example:

Jesus is gentle! He offers rest!

You see, they aren't all controversial! :-)

Marcia,

If you want a comprehensive study on what constitutes Christlikeness, I'm certain that many volumes have been written on this topic! (So please don't expect me to write it all out or even do it justice if I tried.)

But nevertheless, here's a start: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (Gal 5:22-23)  Can't get more Christlike than the fruit of the Spirit! God bless you sister.

(btw, my words to you in the previous comment were in no way a rebuke, just my opinions in reaction to the concerns you raised)

I'm currently reading Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. I recommend this book, it'll really get you thinking about this topic! In chapter 15 he explains why he is catholic (little "c"). Here's an excerpt:

"We believe in one...church," the (Nicene) creed says, and that's no easy-to-swallow statement because we're surrounded by denominations, divisions, arguments, grand polemics, and petty squabbles. That's where the "we believe" part comes in: you can only know the unity of the church by believing it, not by seeing it. When you believe it, you can see through the surface dirt and the cracks to the beauty and unity shining beneath. Generous orthodoxy presumes that the differences, though tragic, are superficial compared to Christianity's deep, though often underappreciated, unity. Perhaps the more we believe in and perceive that unity, the easier it will be to grow beyond the disunity."

ps...the word catholic means universal

"Common Ground" is a greatepisode of my show that addresses our need to be "unified"and not divided.Please Mike and and everyone else,check this out!!!

The issue we are deciding is whether to compromise or to go with what we know.

Did God say there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus?  Is this optional?

Catholicism has long ago divorced herself from the authority of the scriptures only.  They depend on scripture, tradition, and the occasional edict from Rome.  Tradition and edict trump the word.

Pentecostals have gone down this path as well, with disastrous results.  Anytime someone claims to have fresh revelation from God, they're usually working some angle.

According to 1 John 4, we are not to "believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 Jn. 4:1 NIV)

To suggest that denominations are good is to disagree with Jesus who said that the way that leads to life is narrow and the gate strait.

But certainly God can work through denominations.  God worked through Pharaoh but that doesn't mean he had God's approval.  Honestly, some of the reasoning used to support this doctrine (Yes, "Denominations are Good" is a doctrine) are illogical.

Examine this statement: "I have met some Catholics who are FAR more Christlike than Protestants or nondenoms (or whatever)."

Are we talking about individuals here or denominations?  Did Jesus believe the scriptures?  Was Jesus Christlike?  Do Catholics believe the scriptures?  Are Catholics Christlike?

If by Christlike, you mean "a good person" then let me ask the following question: "Is being a 'good person' the criterion for eternal life?"  If so then you are correct, denominations may indeed be good - depending on the person.  But if we are talking about a system of belief then we have to judge the system - not the person in the system.

If Christlike means to walk as Jesus did then you have to use a much finer filter.

The NIV puts it this way: "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."  The word translated "ought" in the KJV is imperative.  In modern English the word "must" is a better translation.

So ask yourself this question: Do most denominations teach how to walk as Jesus did?  If the answer is "Yes" then you can conclude that Denominations are Good. If the answer is "No" then you must conclude the opposite.

Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and cast out demons.  Which denominations are teaching how to walk as Jesus did?  Jesus had a good knowledge of scripture.  Which denominations are teaching how to walk as Jesus did?  Jesus was bold in the Spirit of God.  Which denominations are teaching how to walk as Jesus did?

Rob

Sis Cece, your post strikes me as very fair balanced and reasonable, thank you!! Glad you appreciated the ideas set forth in this blog. They were posted in the interests of unity and encouragement, not divisiveness!!! :-)

Jimmie, sounds good, thanks for your comments, and the plug for your show. I encourage everyone to check him out!

My dear sister Marcia, as I said, that was just a start. I only scratched the surface! Please do yourself a great favor and do some serious study. Good books have been written on the topic!

Coming from a guy who comes from a non-denominational church, lol. Go C3!!!!! :D

Great blog!

Denominationalism is defined by "every wind of doctrine".  If the Apostle Paul were in favor of denominations, he would never have written Ephesians 4:14.

In fact, if "Denominations are Good" then Ephesians 4:14 makes no sense.  The biggest Christian denomination crucifies the Son of God afresh with each and every "worship" service.  God gave gifts to men in order that we would not be carried about with every wind of doctrine.

Circumstance theology says that "my reality is God's reality".  Denominations codify error with circumstance theology.  One preacher told me one time that if God wanted everyone healed, all He'd have to do is snap His fingers and the whole world would be well.  Circumstance says that people get sick.  Circumstance theology concludes that God wants them that way.  Circumstance theology walks by sight and not by faith.

Just because there are denominations doesn't mean God wants there to be.  It is foolish to conclude that my present circumstance is the will of God.  The word of God is the will of God.  If I'm seeing through a glass darkly then it's my fault.  If I am in error it is because I do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

Denominations are carried about with every wind of doctrine because they have discarded the word of God as their guide and lamp unto their feet.  They are the blind leading the blind.  They have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

There are hundreds of warning against doctrinal error in the scriptures.  To chuck all that in favor of "Denominations are Good" is irresponsible and indefensible.

Rob

Jimmie,

This is where "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" comes in.

I'm still nominally a member of the Church of Christ but there is more stuff wrong with that denomination than you can shake a stick at.  Far from saying "my denomination is the only one", I warn people away from my denomination.

I agree with Mike that no denomination has a lock on truth.  God doesn't give His Holy Spirit to denominations, He gives it to people.  Mike doesn't agree with the stuff his church does and I don't agree with some of the stuff that is taught by the Church of Christ (the denomination). 

I say all denominations are of the devil.  God cannot save a denomination.  God saves people.  Denominations are useful in that they define a certain theology.  The designation Church of Christ is a label put on a package of beliefs.  Catholic carries with it not only a system of beliefs but also a religious hierarchy.  The same can be said of United Methodist or Southern Baptist.

Denominations are evil but they are a necessary evil.  It makes church hopping easier.

Rob

This blog reminds me of a dentist office, with all the

(smile) (smile) (smile) (smile)

every time I read that, the sides of my cheeks stretch....

Hey, Vincent, I sure *us* argumentative types could find something to discuss. 

Vincent,

I think the best way to look at things is not by the particulars that divide but the core that unites.

We are united by the singular sacrifice of Jesus for all.

Yes, I've celebrated at Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, Old Catholic, and Independent Catholic altars.

"Celebrated"?  What were you celebrating?  Birthdays?  Graduations?  No.  You were celebrating the holy sacrifice of the mass, weren't you?

Catholics do not believe in the doctrine that Jesus was sacrificed once for all but this doctrine is clearly spelled out in the book of Hebrews.

Catholicism threw out the authority of the scriptures centuries ago.  This is a fact.  Since she has done this, she is accountable to no one, God included.  With her "apostolic succession" she alone is the arbiter of good and evil.  Whatsoever she binds on earth will be bound in heaven.  God's truth is subject to her authority.

Spending more time looking at the "common ground" is futile.  Tomorrow the ground will shift again.  Here's a thought, why doesn't the Catholic Church get with the program and discard her arrogant "What I say goes" philosophy?  Why should bible believing people spend one second trying to find common ground with a system that is so far out? Why not submit to the authority of God's word and do your part for ecumenism?

Now, you'll have to excuse me.  I'm meeting my Catholic sisters for breakfast at Bob Evans'.  I love these people very much but I'm sad that they've been so deceived for so long.

Rob

Jimmie,

Paul understood the difference between his personal preference and the commandment of the Lord.

Rob

Greetings brothers and sisters,

I've been unable to read/respond/follow your continued comments until now. I have some writing/responding to do! But first, I also rec'd a message from someone "concerned" about the tone of some of our comments (mine included?). When I misbehave, I do expect to be rebuked, and perhaps I have been. (I'm still in the process of dialoguing even now.)

Believe me when I say, whatever I post to this blog from here on out will be posted in absolute love for you, commenters and readers all. (This was actually my intention from the start, but the flesh continually battles the Spirit.) Perhaps I just needed to post the reminder.

This passage of scripture was included in the message I rec'd, and since it is God's word, I'll post it here in full and w/a clean conscience (and in love).

Galatians 5:9-15
    A little leaven (a slight inclination to error, or a few false teachers) leavens the whole lump [it perverts the whole conception of faith or misleads the whole church].
    [For my part] I have confidence [toward you] in the Lord that you will take no contrary view of the matter but will come to think with me. But he who is unsettling you, whoever he is, will have to bear the penalty.
    But, brethren, if I still preach circumcision [as some accuse me of doing, as necessary to salvation], why am I still suffering persecution? In that case the cross has ceased to be a stumbling block and is made meaningless (done away).
    I wish those who unsettle and confuse you would [[c]go all the way and] cut themselves off!
    For you, brethren, were [indeed] called to freedom; only [do not let your] freedom be an incentive to your flesh and an opportunity or excuse [for [d]selfishness], but through love you should serve one another.
    For the whole Law [concerning human relationships] is [e]complied with in the one precept, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.(A)
    But if you bite and devour one another [in partisan strife], be careful that you [and your whole fellowship] are not consumed by one another.

I believe God is speaking to ALL of us through this. I have NO desire to put ANYONE on the spot, so I won't call anyone out specifically. But I do need to say, that although disagreements with the blog and its writer (me) are welcomed, please guard against an overly judgmental/harsh spirit, and PLEASE keep in mind that the main "customers" of MyChurch are churches that subscribe to the Nicene creed. This includes churches of numerous different "denominations". If comments are posted that disparage an entire group of believers w/o regard for its individual adherents, the commenter will be asked to refrain from commenting further.

The terms of use for MyChurch.org speak to these issues as well. Thank you for reading, dear brothers and sisters. This is written in love for you all, my readers and my commenters.

Marcia, sister, I love you too and thank you for your continued interest in this topic. No one was specifically called out. If my message applies to you, please act accordingly. If not, no worries. Ok?

I am reminded that I owe you a response or two. (When I can get to it.)  :-)

If we remember, the early church, was a house to house church. They did not have huge congregations meet in one place. They did not have the fancy multi-million dollar buildings.

They did not have a set preacher, for the early church was modeled after the synagogues, where a person would get up and read the scriptures, and expound upon them, read when Christ got up and read from Isiah. 

We no longer take responsibility for our own learning of the word of God, we find it easier to have a single person tell us about God, no longer taking the task on ourselves. (I speak of the body, not individuals here)

It kind of reminds me of how the doctors used to be, going house to house, then because they found they could make more money quicker, they started having all the sick congregate in one place. Look at all the sick we have now, if you weren't sick before you go to the doctor, you will be by the time you leave.

So, too the churches, (or so it seems to me) find that by getting all the people come on one day, they can make sure to make the money.......

I would like to add to my first comment,
Mike was posting this only to bring some light to the fact that "Christians" seperate themselfs from one another because they don't belong to the same denomination as they do. He was saying how wonderful it is to fellowship with other believers, no matter what Denomination a belieaver belongs to. Or non denomination.  I don't belieave all these seperate denominations are ordered by the Lord. In fact, I know they are not. I know the Apostles were the first to go about establishing "Churches"  Then came persecution. I'll let someone else bring the fullness of this out if need be. I know that the Roman Catholic Church was the first to established their denomination.  That is the first known Denomination. All others, Lutherns, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Came after the reformation or protest of the Catholic Establishment. Thus called Protestants. Each denomanation taking a portion of Scripture and calling it their doctrine. Then came all these that come to mind at the moment. Here in the US of course. The Church of God in Christ, The Assemblies of God, The United Pentecostal Chruch. Forgive me If I forgot someone. Let's just accept the fact that
division has come and has been around for along time. That is what the Lord is not pleased with. We can all start to come together and learn the truth and the fullness of Gods glory. That will only happen if one puts aside his or her pride in what they know and belieave to be the TRUTH.
My friends, here on My Church, I love you all. If I could go to where ever you gather to worship the Lord and listen to the Word of the Lord. I would gladly go.
 Our Idenity should be in Christ and not in a building made by man, or a name put on it.
God Bless, and may the Spirit of the Lord lead and guide you into all truths.  God has a plan and purpose for us all.   Amen.

Just poppin in. Sis Cece, I find your comments refreshing and coming from a sweet spirit. Thanks for your help in bringing Christians together, as opposed to dividing.

Gary, I respect you, and you make interesting points. Not at all to disagree, but I do see the Lord using modern forms, patterns, and practices.

Jill G, your words echo those of Grant (further above), whom I deeply respect. Thanks!

Thank you Ima Grandma!

Cece,

The only context in which "Denominations are Good", I think, is that it allows for improved interpretation (of the scriptures) over time.

Christianity has a proud tradition of "book burning" that goes all the way back to the book of Acts.   The books that they burned in Acts were about sorcery and stuff but to us 21st century Americans, it seems rather barbaric.  Our society embraces diversity of thought.  The Industrial Revolution could not have taken place if man had allowed the church to dictate.

Look at the wonderful theologies that have come out of religious freedom.  Kenneth Hagin pioneered "Full Gospel" and "Word of Faith" theology.  Martin Luther refused to allow the established church to convince him of righteousness by works.  Each mainstream denomination has elements of truth and none of them have a lock on it.

There was a theology in the 4th century known as Arianism.  Arius was from Alexandria, Egypt and taught that the Son of God was a created being.  He postulated that there was a time before the Son existed.  The established church burned all his writings and all we have left are what people wrote about Arius and his theology - nothing from him.  The Nicene Creed contains language contradicting Arianism.

I have a similar theology to Arius.  I believe that in the next iteration of the universe, there will be four that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Son, the Bride, and the Holy Spirit.  These four will be one God over the New Heaven and the New Earth.  But if you say I'm crazy then so be it.  NOTHING depends on my theology being correct.

But there are essential doctrines that if we get them wrong, we will miss eternal life - we will miss God.  While denominations provide a slightly different view of God, we MUST understand that there is but a single view that is God's view.  God's view and opinion are correct and every contrary view and opinion is false. 

People can guilt themselves into hell.  People can miss out on the bounty of the kingdom of God through unbelief.  People try very hard to make God proud of them because their denomination says that performance is how we please God. 

While we don't have to be right about everything, we do have to be right about some things.  God is not a respecter of persons but certain denominations teach that He heals some and leaves other sick.  While they confess with their mouths, "God is no respecter of persons", they, in fact, believe and teach the contrary.  Obviously, this is not of God.

But everybody has to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.  God gave Adam and Eve to eat of every tree in the garden except one.  Today, God give us one tree of knowledge among a forest of imposters.

Rob

Mike n Laura, I agree, He can use anything, I didn't say He couldn't, I am just asking in sorts... is it what He designed? Or is it what flesh begat???

Just like He can use Doctors, but He would rather we seek Him. It is our lack of faith that keeps the doctors in business.

We are the Church, and if/when we realize this, and operate in faith, going back to how He set the Church up, going house to house..... we would not have as much spiritual ailments.... (so it seems to me)

Do I go house to house to worship.... yup!

We (my family) worship at home, and we go to my mom's, sometimes we go to my sisters, my brothers.... We don't have a million dollar budget to worry about for the church building...... Who's the preacher you ask (or don't) .... we all read scripture, I have the duty one week, my brother another, my wife another, my mom, my sister. And we talk about what was read, what we get out of it, what it means to us....

Of course we don't have a big choir, and we don't pass the plate, we do feed each other though. When we have it at our house, my wife and I cook, or my mom cooks at her place her turn, and so forth.....

Anyways, sorry.... rambling...

Nice comment, Gary.

"...there is but a single view that is God's view." Rob, I'm confident we all agree on this. Thanks brother.

Mike n Laura, earlier you wrote: PLEASE keep in mind that the main "customers" of MyChurch are churches that subscribe to the Nicene creed. This includes churches of numerous different "denominations".

In the Nicean creed, one of the main objects of conversation was whether to worship God as one being, or to worship three separate beings, unified as the Godhead.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons in one Godhead.

I worship a single being myself. So I am not a follower of the Nicene creed.

I am a follower of Sabellianism, which is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

 To me, the idea of worshiping three separate beings is not monotheism, but rather pluraltheism.

Gary,

Your point is well taken.  And so, "Let us make man in our image..." is something a single Entity said to Himself?  If so, the syntax is all wrong.  Moses was certainly no polytheist.

Anyone who is married is living out this kind of "oneness".  The two flesh become one.  They don't merge as if in some horrible Transporter accident, they become one in marriage.  (Shout out to all my Star Trek homies!)

We become one with Jesus.  Does that mean we become Jesus?  No but we are one with Him.  We are united with Him in baptism (Rom. 6:5 - any version BUT the KJV).

Obviously, this is kinda off-topic but, you're right, we should probably be sensitive to our non-Nicene brethren. 

Rob

Rob

The Hebrew word ĕlôhîym was used either as a singular or plural word.

If you look in the Hebrew, the word *us*, as in Gen. 3:2, has no definition.

and looking at the other words surrounding *us*, you see that it can be either singular or plural.

The same applies to Gen. 1:26... *us* was an add in, not part of the original Hebrew. Else it too would have meaning.

As to the man and woman, in Hebrew, one is echâd, united,.. which comes from 'âchad..  unify, that is, (figuratively) collect (one’s thoughts).. 

And flesh is bâśâr, ..  flesh.. which comes from bâśar..  to be fresh, that is, full  (rosy, figuratively cheerful)

So the two become united and cheerful.